Windows Server 2019 Reaching GA Next Month

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Windows Server 2019 Reaching GA Next Month

For those running a mix of Linux and Windows Servers or simply wanting to know what the "competition" has going on, Microsoft announced today that Windows Server 2019 will be reaching general availability in October...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Windows-Server-2019-GA-October

[cybertraveler]

For those wondering: "hyper-converged infrastructure" is this: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...yper-converged

The TL;DR is: control all your virtual & physical server infrastructure from a well-integrated, single place; probably with a focus on making you use Microsoft software throughout the entire stack.

[Michael_S]

For those wondering: "hyper-converged infrastructure" is this: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...yper-converged

The TL;DR is: control all your virtual & physical server infrastructure from a well-integrated, single place; probably with a focus on making you use Microsoft software throughout the entire stack.

Linux is too popular for Microsoft to ignore it, even Windows Azure is approaching 50% Linux servers.

But I suspect the billing has to do with the number of machines managed. So manage Windows, manage Linux, Microsoft doesn't care. They just want $100/managed server/year (or whatever). That's just a guess.

[edwaleni]

I was presented a biz case that operating Windows in a large corporate was actually starting to become less expensive as Linux.

The issue wasn't so much the support agreements, it was the constant release cycle in Linux and churn of different day exploits that required patching.

They are seeing more breakage in Linux to make patches work than they are with SP's from MSFT.

The question was raised that MSFT has started to pick up the cadence in their Server releases and that the advantage would be lost.

Patching Java, Python and a few other libs are becoming a problem, especially in point releases that are still in their lifecycle.

[fuzz]

I was presented a biz case that operating Windows in a large corporate was actually starting to become less expensive as Linux.

The issue wasn't so much the support agreements, it was the constant release cycle in Linux and churn of different day exploits that required patching.

They are seeing more breakage in Linux to make patches work than they are with SP's from MSFT.

The question was raised that MSFT has started to pick up the cadence in their Server releases and that the advantage would be lost.

Patching Java, Python and a few other libs are becoming a problem, especially in point releases that are still in their lifecycle.

Maybe, maybe not. But does this case take into consideration security costs from unknown vulnerabilities in Windows due to the closed-source nature?

[edwaleni]

@Fuzz.

Yes. All things were considered.

[Wilfred]

I was presented a biz case that operating Windows in a large corporate was actually starting to become less expensive as Linux.

The issue wasn't so much the support agreements, it was the constant release cycle in Linux and churn of different day exploits that required patching.

They are seeing more breakage in Linux to make patches work than they are with SP's from MSFT.

The question was raised that MSFT has started to pick up the cadence in their Server releases and that the advantage would be lost.

Patching Java, Python and a few other libs are becoming a problem, especially in point releases that are still in their lifecycle.

Mwaohaha, as if you don't need to patch MS Windows and then test those patches. I used to have a colleague who posted messages on the internal intranet about which patches to avoid if you wanted your Exchange to keep running.
And you still need to patch Java and Python on Windows too. Patching java used to be a real PITA on Windows.

[Weasel]

And you still need to patch Java and Python on Windows too. Patching java used to be a real PITA on Windows.

Well for either OS, there's no need to patch what isn't installed. Do your computer (and its safety) a favor ;-)

[Wilfred]

Well for either OS, there's no need to patch what isn't installed. Do your computer (and its safety) a favor ;-)

Yes. I did that too. Unfortunately some really did need it.

[Michael_S]

Most Red Hat/CentOS releases have a support cycle near ten years. How does Windows beat that?

Sure, if I was going to build a corporate network around regular (non Long Term Support) Ubuntu releases or Fedora releases or Arch or Gentoo then Windows Server might be cheaper.

**And** Linux admins don't have to mess with licensing servers, per-server login limits, software billing and related paperwork. At the tiny company where I used to work, that was a colossal time waste for me. Meanwhile the Linux servers just worked.

I'm willing to give evidence to the contrary fair consideration, but my first thought is that these are lies backed by Microsoft.